It’s early and I’m tired, but I’m going to go ahead and make this post because it’s the only thing on my mind right now. I may not be in the best condition to make a good and fair argument for “Christian Hedonism”, but nevertheless, I’m going to try.

First of all, I’m aware that much apprehension towards “Christian Hedonism” theology is not the theology at all. Many simply take issue with the use of the word “hedonsim”. I’m curious to know for how many people this is the case. Because the use of the word “hedonism” to describe the pursuit of pleasure is accurate, but not something I feel is worth making an argument for. It may not be the best descriptive term, and it may be just a utility for “shock-value” (although John Piper argues that it is not), but that issue is something that I think would be a waste of time arguing about. I think the word is accurate, but it does carry a lot of baggage and can give many who are not familiar with the true definition the wrong idea. Honestly, I think a great deal of opposition to this theology and to John Piper could have been avoided had he chosen a different term.

So, with that out of the way, who actually takes issue with the theology? Well, what exactly is the theology? Piper puts it this way: “God is most glorified in us when we are most satified in Him“. That’s it in a nutshell. So, does anybody take issue with this statement? I wouldn’t think so, but there are those who would argue for “obedience” or “love”, rather than “satisfaction”. I’ll hit on that later.

Right now I want to deal with the assumption by some that John Piper himself “invented” or “contrived” this theology and therefore it should be treated with heavy criticism. If this theology isn’t evident in the Bible and in the past few thousand years of the Church, indeed it should be criticized. But I have to make the argument that this theology is not only visible in Scripture and historical church thought, but abundant. So, who else has promoted this line of thinking? Well, C. S. Lewis, Daniel Fuller, the Puritains, Matthew Henry, Jonathan Edwards, and St. Augustine come to mind immediately. Lewis said that “it is a Christian duty, as you know, for everyone to be as happy as he can.” Jonathan Edwards, in my mind, has been the most prolific (outside of Scripture) about God being the most glorified in our satisfaction in Him. He wrote a series of resolutions for his life at the age of 20, among which was a resolution “to endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness in the other world as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.” So why were all these guys so serious about happiness? Because they knew they were designed to be happy and that God is the source of happiness. As the old Westminster Catechism states: “The cheif end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” Notice it doesn’t say “chief ends“, but “chief end“. They are not two different things, but one in the same.

So is that evident in the Bible? Oh yeah. I don’t have time to cover all of it, but a quick rundown would look something like this: Starting with Moses, who threatend horrible things if we would not be happy in Deut. 28:47-48. Then King David, who saturated his Psalms with the idea that only God provides happiness (Ps. 43, 100, 37, 90, 67, and 16). Then, of course, is Jesus, who told us to rejoice in our obedience and persecution in Matt. 5. He also tells us how He is the source for our joy “being made full” in John 15. Christ himself endured the cross for joy according to Heb. 12. He also promises that He, in the end, will command us to be joyful forever in Matt. 25. Jesus’ brother, James, wrote that we should “consider it all joy…when you encounter various trials” (James 1:2). Not to mention Paul, who was the epitomy of being “sorrowful, yet always rejoicing” (2 Cor. 6:10), and commanded us to “rejoice in the Lord always” (Philippians 4:4).

Blaise Pascal wrote that “all men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end… The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.”

The first objection I get from most people is the idea that man should puruse obedience first, rather than pursue joy. That’s like saying “eat fruit, not apples”. It doesn’t make sense. Joy is not a by-product or spin-off of obedience. That’s what most were taught growing up. But the fact remains that the Bible teaches that joy is obedience. Scripture is very serious about being happy. If we do not delight in God, what use is it for us to merely obey? Again, I have to reference Deut. 28:47-48, where it declares, “Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and a glad heart…therefore you shall serve your enemies.” Jonathan Edwards states it quite eloquently:
God is glorified not only by His glory’s being seen, but by it’s being rejoiced in.
When those that see it delight in it, God is more glorified than if they only see
it. His glory is then recieved by the whole soul, both by the understanding and
by the heart. God made the world that He might communicate, and the creature
receive, His glory; and that it might [be] received both by the mind and heart.
He that testifies his idea of God’s glory [doesn’t] glorify God so much as he that
testifies also his…delight in it.

If I were to take Katy out for a romantic dinner, but only out of duty, the action is stripped of it’s value. It’s my happiness and enjoyment in Katy that makes the act valuable to her. In the same way, God cannot be fully glorified in our obedience unless we are happy and take joy in God first.

So, God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.

The other objection I get is the use of terms “happiness” and “joy” interchangebly. Many (like myself) were taught growing up that there is a distinction between these two terms. We were taught that many things can make us “happy” but only God can provide joy. I’ve posted on this before, so if your interested check out that post here.

This is another issue I’m not going to fuss about because I can honestly see both sides of it. But right now, I’m definately leaning towards the perspective that the Bible uses these terms interchangebly as well. Maybe it’s just how I read my Bible, or due to the fact that this is how it plays out in my own life, but it’s just how I see things right now.

So lets take another look at the statement: “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him”. It makes sense to me. I’ve never read in my Bible that we should avoid pleasure. It only commands against idols (finding pleasure in something else besides God). The most comforting thought that is communicated in this theology is the idea that my happiness and God’s will for my life are not at odds. God has designed me to find true happiness and joy in glorifying Him and doing what He’s designed me to do. Will I suffer in my life and struggle with bouts of frustration, pain, and hate? You bet. But in those sufferings, will I find the happiness and joy that is found in God and His sovereignty in my life? I hope so. Just as Jesus, Peter, James, and Paul teach: It is my duty to be joyful in pain and suffering. I am designed to find happiness in God, no matter what trials He may allow in my life.

Can I find happiness in other things besides God? Well, it depends on your definition of happiness. If you’re talking about the biblical ideas of happiness and joy, then no–only God brings true happiness and pleasure. Do some things of this world make me happy? Again, what is happy? My iPod gives me satisfaction, but I know that it is only temporary and fleeting. My iPod does allow me to enjoy music a great deal, which is something I know God has given me a special appreciation and affinity towards (and no, I don’t think that is a stretch). But if I want to know joy and pleasure in the purest sense, I know that it can only be found in God.

I know this was a terribly long post, but I had to cover some critical issues and I didn’t want to shortchange anything (although, I know I inevitably did). I know I didn’t get to cover several misunderstandings and assumptions about “Christian Hedonism” and John Piper—I could only cover what the theological and biblical truths are (in my mind). I wish I could deal with everything “Christian Hedonism” is not—-I can only briefly say what it is. Of course I’d love to hear some thoughts, objections, and questions regarding this stuff, though I’m sure I’m not qualified to make a good argument probably. But that’s the fun in all this. We’re all still wrestling with all of this.